From the Marathi side of the world
A play begins to grow inside of you. When it is time and you cannot hold it in any more, it has to be brought out. Whether it is an inner need that triggered it or a workshop becomes irrelevant the second it begins to acquire shape. Irrespective of genre, form or language, the play is an experience. It has to engage you while you watch it and make you think once you leave. I don’t understand why the writers writing in English need to offer any kind of justification for doing so. It is about what is being said not about which language it is being said in. I care about the experience it is about to give me and nothing else.
(Of course, making the play a word-oriented one is a choice the writer is entitled to. It is possible to make it an exciting one even when it is about the writing and not about how much each character DOES or how many events it goes through- G.P.Deshpande’s ‘Udhvasta Dharmashala’ is an excellent example of a play that is a ‘talkie’ but an immensely exciting experience. So is ‘Raaste’. What is Tendulkar’s ‘Shantata! Court chalu aahe’? Chetan Datar’s ‘Khel Mandiyela’? Miro Gavran’s ‘Bricky’ or even ‘Death of an actor’…. Maia, your writing grabs the reader in a stronghold and makes him face the reality you offer whether he likes it or not. Indifference is not an alternative. He has to struggle with that reality. It leaves him tired in the end. I think that’s as theatrical as it gets.)
I think the bit about the purpose of Indian Drama being to create a feeling of pleasure or bliss is too gross to comment upon. What pleasure or bliss have Elkunchwar’s plays given people? Where does Badal Sircar feature in this pleasure giving exercise?
Also, honestly, is writing in English in India really a political act of sorts? If we agreed to that, I think we’d be doing injustice to the actual play. If we accept the diversity of languages in India today, we accept English as a part of it. It is not really a matter of English and the rest; let’s have as detailed a discussion on the content of our writing instead.
The bit about whether the Royal court is imposing its style on us writers. I think we need to remember that a PLAY came before the PLAY ANALYSIS. The technique has been modelled later based on several well written plays. The technique doesn’t dictate the writing, it aids it. So no, I don’t think there is any style being imposed here. However, sometimes, when I apply some of the things Carl taught us to my writing, it affects the natural rhythm of Marathi. The scene reads CORRECTLY but lacks life. So then I do what helps my play, I DON’T apply them. As Maia said, they are a set of tools.That we can choose from for the rest of our lives. They don’t have to make sense with each and every thing we write. But they are an easy way to check yourself if you’re unsure about the direction of your writing. And ultimately, I think it is up to each writer to choose not to be imposed upon.
(Of course, making the play a word-oriented one is a choice the writer is entitled to. It is possible to make it an exciting one even when it is about the writing and not about how much each character DOES or how many events it goes through- G.P.Deshpande’s ‘Udhvasta Dharmashala’ is an excellent example of a play that is a ‘talkie’ but an immensely exciting experience. So is ‘Raaste’. What is Tendulkar’s ‘Shantata! Court chalu aahe’? Chetan Datar’s ‘Khel Mandiyela’? Miro Gavran’s ‘Bricky’ or even ‘Death of an actor’…. Maia, your writing grabs the reader in a stronghold and makes him face the reality you offer whether he likes it or not. Indifference is not an alternative. He has to struggle with that reality. It leaves him tired in the end. I think that’s as theatrical as it gets.)
I think the bit about the purpose of Indian Drama being to create a feeling of pleasure or bliss is too gross to comment upon. What pleasure or bliss have Elkunchwar’s plays given people? Where does Badal Sircar feature in this pleasure giving exercise?
Also, honestly, is writing in English in India really a political act of sorts? If we agreed to that, I think we’d be doing injustice to the actual play. If we accept the diversity of languages in India today, we accept English as a part of it. It is not really a matter of English and the rest; let’s have as detailed a discussion on the content of our writing instead.
The bit about whether the Royal court is imposing its style on us writers. I think we need to remember that a PLAY came before the PLAY ANALYSIS. The technique has been modelled later based on several well written plays. The technique doesn’t dictate the writing, it aids it. So no, I don’t think there is any style being imposed here. However, sometimes, when I apply some of the things Carl taught us to my writing, it affects the natural rhythm of Marathi. The scene reads CORRECTLY but lacks life. So then I do what helps my play, I DON’T apply them. As Maia said, they are a set of tools.That we can choose from for the rest of our lives. They don’t have to make sense with each and every thing we write. But they are an easy way to check yourself if you’re unsure about the direction of your writing. And ultimately, I think it is up to each writer to choose not to be imposed upon.
posted by Anonymous at 1:01 pm
3 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
'Purpose of Indian drama' -- I should have explained that the book I was referring to looks first at Sanskrit drama and the Natyashastra. Here is what he says about it:
"...the wide connotation of acting or abhinaya as elaborated in the Natyashastra is as notable as it is different from the Western style of acting. The object of abhinaya, according to the Sanskrit dramaturgy, is to create a feeling of bliss or Ananada in the mind of the spectators by revealing various mental states of a character. In actual life, various human emotions, like love, pity, fear, anger, produce different mental states. But in a play, when the actors show the characters passing through various sentiments and their clash, the spectators experience them in a manner that in the end a feeling os satisfaction and fulfilment or Ananda is produced. The aim of abhinaya in the Sanskrit theatre is to create the Rasa or Ananda. This concept of acting is completely different from the Greek or Aristotelean concept of catharsis, according to which an intense experience of emotions like terror, fear and pity in tragic plays leads to catharsis, or purges human beings of these emotions."
Of course many things could be said about this, not least that it is probably only academics who are interested now in drama that was performed several thousand years ago. It would be absurd to suggest that writers writing today in whatever part of the world should do anything other than respond to that world as it exists in their own experience.
I hope by the way that nobody thinks I actually agree with what was said in that article I quoted! But I did want to hear what you all thought and said about it and thank goodness you have had lots to say. Please do keep saying it. The article, by the way, was anonymous, though Elyse Dodgson told me she knew who wrote it.
Rock on I say! Great stuff...
AND... If I may...
The concept of 'rasa' is often grossly abstracted down to 'pleasure' or 'bliss' - much the same way that 'catharsis' is simplistically dubbed 'purgation'. As is evident now, neither can be used in blanket statements.
The most beautiful interpretation of 'rasa' that I have come across is one shared by Prakash Belawadi, whom some of you met at the launch.
There is an audience, there is a performance, there are performers... The fusing of all three into one unified collective is rasa. The skill, commitment and power of the performers in creating an alternate reality; the synthesis of all the individual aspects of performance into one cohesive orchestrated whole; and the energy of an audience that is engaged, challenged and involved; all three result in a shared ecstasy, a high, the indescribable adrenaline rush of a great show - this is 'pleasure' ... this is rasa.
In Ira's essence, rasa occurs when the performance grabs the audience "in a stronghold and makes him face the reality you offer whether he likes it or not. Indifference is not an alternative. He has to struggle with that reality. It leaves him tired in the end. I think that’s as theatrical as it gets."
This stunningly 'functional' interpretation of rasa is something I will swear by since it is immensly more useful than some clunky intellectual artefact.
The electric aura that I feel at the point of performance… That buzz in everyone's tummy is what makes it all worth it…
Post a Comment
<< Home